Psychological content analysis techniques developed to distinguish truthful from fabricated
allegations (Statement Validity Assessment, Reality Monitoring, Scientifi c Content Analysis)
show some promise in distinguishing truthful from fabricated statements. It is however argued,
that they are not accurate enough to be admitted as expert scientifi c evidence in courts. A new,
innovative formal assessment procedure – Multivariable Adult’s Statement Assessment Model
(MASAM) was proposed.
A group of 43 raters trained in statement content analysis, rated witnesses’ accounts. Studies
have proven that with the use of MASAM it is possible to select 96,87% of truthful accounts and the
conditional probability for content analysis results based upon MASAM analysis is 91,85%. As regards
to false statements assessment, content analysis with the use of MASAM has also proven its
superiority, with the conditional probability of 69,23% and three other compared content analysis
techniques lead to wrong decisions in more than 50% of cases
